Skimming the article, the basic tradeoff seems to be extreme longevity versus extinction. But the human race in general is attaching zero priority to extreme longevity as a goal. There is a scattered minority at all levels of society who would jump at the chance for 200-year or 1000-year lifespans, but it is a minority. If most ordinary people, or even most intelligentsia, wanted it, then our societies would give it some level of priority. But it is given no level of priority; it is actually viewed negatively. These days, if the topic comes up, it is mostly considered to be a neurotic desire of selfish alienated super-rich.
My question: among all the formal variations of the tradeoff considered in the article, is there one that can represent how the tradeoff looks, when significant life extension is assigned basically zero value?
Skimming the article, the basic tradeoff seems to be extreme longevity versus extinction. But the human race in general is attaching zero priority to extreme longevity as a goal. There is a scattered minority at all levels of society who would jump at the chance for 200-year or 1000-year lifespans, but it is a minority. If most ordinary people, or even most intelligentsia, wanted it, then our societies would give it some level of priority. But it is given no level of priority; it is actually viewed negatively. These days, if the topic comes up, it is mostly considered to be a neurotic desire of selfish alienated super-rich.
My question: among all the formal variations of the tradeoff considered in the article, is there one that can represent how the tradeoff looks, when significant life extension is assigned basically zero value?